People v. Merrill
| Decision Date | 15 February 1996 |
| Citation | 664 N.E.2d 498,87 N.Y.2d 948,641 N.Y.S.2d 587 |
| Parties | , 664 N.E.2d 498 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Appellant, v. John MERRILL, Respondent. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, with costs, and the matter remitted to that Court for further proceedings in accordance with this memorandum.
Plaintiff Paul Grassi commenced this personal injury action against defendants for injuries to his neck, left arm and left hand allegedly sustained after the car driven by defendant Kurt Ulrich collided with plaintiff's vehicle. Defendants stipulated that Ulrich's negligence caused the accident, but presented expert proof to establish that plaintiff's injuries were the result of a pre-existing degenerative condition and not the accident, as plaintiff's experts opined. The jury returned a verdict in defendants' favor, and the trial court denied plaintiff's motion pursuant to CPLR 4404(a) to set aside the verdict as against the weight of the evidence.
The Appellate Division erred in curtailing its review of the denial of that motion after simply finding record evidence to support the jury's verdict (see, Lolik v. Big V Supermarkets, 86 N.Y.2d 744, 631 N.Y.S.2d 122, 655 N.E.2d 163). Having found sufficient evidence to support the verdict, the Court was then required to consider the conflicting medical evidence presented by plaintiff and determine "whether ' "the evidence so preponderate[d] in favor of the [plaintiff] that [the verdict] could not have been reached on any fair interpretation of the evidence" ' " (id., at 746, 631 N.Y.S.2d 122, 655 N.E.2d 163, quoting Moffatt v. Moffatt, 86 A.D.2d 864, 447 N.Y.S.2d 313, affd 62 N.Y.2d 875, 478 N.Y.S.2d 864, 467 N.E.2d 528).
On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), order reversed, etc.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. McCray
...he would have had if timely notice had been given,” and in such case the waiver rule applies (id.; see e.g. People v. Merrill, 87 N.Y.2d 948, 641 N.Y.S.2d 587, 664 N.E.2d 498 [1996], revg. on dissenting op. of Denman, P.J., and Balio, J., 212 A.D.2d 987, 988, 624 N.Y.S.2d 702 [1995] ). The ......
-
People v. Heller
...of that evidence, the defendant had proceeded to a determination of the suppression motion. See, e.g., People v. Merrill, 87 N.Y.2d 948, 949, 641 N.Y.S.2d 587, 664 N.E.2d 498 (1996); People v. Perrilla, 247 A.D.2d 326, 669 N.Y.S.2d 214 (1st Dep't 1998) People v. Estrada, 241 A.D.2d 378, 379......
-
People v. Sturiale
... ... Because the oral statements were the very subject of the suppression hearing, the sufficiency of the CPL 710.30 notice was irrelevant (see, CPL 710.30 ; People v. Kirkland, 89 N.Y.2d 903, 904-905, 653 N.Y.S.2d 256, 675 N.E.2d 1208; People v. Merrill, 87 N.Y.2d ... 948, 949, 641 N.Y.S.2d 587, 664 N.E.2d 498, revg. on dissent at 212 A.D.2d 987, 624 N.Y.S.2d 702; cf., People v. Bernier, 73 N.Y.2d 1006, 1008, 541 N.Y.S.2d 760, 539 N.E.2d 588; People v. Amparo, 73 N.Y.2d 728, 729, 535 N.Y.S.2d 588, 532 N.E.2d 94). In any event, defendant did ... ...
- NBT Bancorp Inc. v. Fleet/Norstar Financial Group, Inc.